Don't be mad at me. Most people would not care to check the actual figures of accumulated inflation (or even grasp the concept to begin with). I really (and simply) thought: "nice, she actually checked the numbers". It was not condescending in any way.
I mentioned Kieran regarding the 30 billion difference, that he mentioned in this post
I'm not mad and I didn't think for a minute you were being condescending. It's a quick check of years and an and inflation calculator on the internet. I gave the benefit of the doubt to Bloomberg's last year in office. But he was in for 12 years, so who knows? The OP preferred to go with the big difference, without even mentioning that there would be an adjustment for inflation. A bit sneaky, IMO.
are you associating deficits with socialism? For the record there are two ways to get a surplus, increase revenues or cut spending. What did Giuliani do? Not that it's particularly relevant, but I'm genuinely interested
It IS sneaky, but that's what people have been doing. There are things far worst than that around the internet.
It was Bloomberg who got the surplus, and he did it by raising property taxes. (Which in NYC is mainly a tax on the wealthy.)
a clarification that's as clear as mud! I'll assume you won't answer my question about what Giuliani did, which is typical
My point is that the increase in expenditure, State creep is par for the course with socialists, I didn't and don't feel the need to identify specific politicians to validate that point.
Why does this need to be so aggressive and unhelpful? You asked me why I mentioned Giuliani, even though he preceded Bloomie, and I told you why. I don't know what you want me to tell you about the entire Giuliani administration. If you like, you can forget I mentioned it.a clarification that's as clear as mud! I'll assume you won't answer my question about what Giuliani did, which is typical
lol! It's truly fascinating watching you work. Any rational person looking at my response wouldn't characterise it as aggressive and unhelpful. I actually answered your question, you didn't answer mine. You asked me who was the socialist I was referring to, I responded that it isn't necessary to specify a politician, all I need to do is look at the growth in spending. I also pointed out, by the way, that deficits can happen in two ways, increased spending or reduced revenue collection (i.e., taxes). And before you come back at me, I framed it in terms of surpluses at the time, but with basic common sense you can flip it around. My reason for asking about Giuliani, was to find out if he increased the deficit was it because he increased spending or cut taxes. A reasonable question which you wouldn't answer. Gaslight much?
It took you 3 posts to answer my question about what socialist you were talking about, and the first time you've actually been clear was above. You are passively aggressively brief all the time, then occasionally come through, as above, when pressed. But you're always nasty about it. No one's "gaslighting" you. Paranoid much?lol! It's truly fascinating watching you work. Any rational person looking at my response wouldn't characterise it as aggressive and unhelpful. I actually answered your question, you didn't answer mine. You asked me who was the socialist I was referring to, I responded that it isn't necessary to specify a politician, all I need to do is look at the growth in spending. I also pointed out, by the way, that deficits can happen in two ways, increased spending or reduced revenue collection (i.e., taxes). And before you come back at me, I framed it in terms of surpluses at the time, but with basic common sense you can flip it around. My reason for asking about Giuliani, was to find out if he increased the deficit was it because he increased spending or cut taxes. A reasonable question which you wouldn't answer. Gaslight much?
Oh and good luck trying to manufacture a narrative about me being unclear. Sometimes you simply don't understand simple questions. That's not my fault
ok let's have some fun with this...
I agree to an extent with what you’re saying, after the fact, crime needs to be investigated, but you’re saying it practically, and you’re not saying what she says when she says that they’re “not necessarily there to prevent crimes happening.”
That's true that the statute of limitations has expired, which is why they rushed to get a DA who would even agree to prosecute it, since one had already refused. If the judge has any backbone, she should throw it out on the grounds that Trump was speficially ordering it, which is illegal. That notion that we have an independent judiciary under him is a complete farce.
Hegseth...are you kidding? He doesn't have a thought in his fluffy little head other than do what Trump says, and Trump called them seditionists and traitors. Because he truly believes that the military has to do whatever he says, illegal or not. And he's already been asking them to do illegal things. That's why he flipped out over it.
Code switch?I've tried, but I can't get the sound to play on the first part of the video, so I'm not sure what you and Federberg are debating. I thought you posted it because you were pissed that you discovered that she can code switch, only chooses not to.
I honestly don't know what you mean. I certainly don't understand the comparison to Harris. You understand what code-switching is, right?Code switch?
She’s pandering to the race addicts, she’s become a meme, like Kamala, not a serious politician…
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Serious PC thread | World Affairs | 2694 | |
| T | THE EASTERNERS - THE SLAVS thread. | World Affairs | 13 | |
|
Russia Politics Thread | World Affairs | 89 | |
|
|
UK Politics Thread | World Affairs | 1131 | |
|
|
Geopolitics in the Middle East | World Affairs | 46 |
